Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Keeping Mark Steyn In Line

"'We are for free speech and free expression, but it shouldn't be exclusively for the rich and powerful corporate media,' Mohamed Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), told the paper."The CIC, Canada's largest non-profit Islamic body, launched last month three complaints with Canada's federal and provincial human rights commissions against newsweekly Maclean', which had published excerpts from a book critical of Islam by Canadian writer Mark Steyn....the CIC is not seeking monetary damages [from MaCleans magazine], but it only wants the magazine to publish a rebuttal of the offensive article.Is Steyn a racist? Indubitably. Is what he wrote protected by Canadian Freedom of Expression laws? Contrary to some of the Doom-Sayers on the Right, who want to make Macleans, the representative of the "powerful corporate media" in question here, look like underdogs in the case, it almost certainly is.

So, if Mr. Steyn and Macleans get dragged before a Human Rights tribunal and win, what is the point of the exercise? A case can be made that Macleans actually stands to come out ahead, as controversy = increased sales. Mind you, this is Canada not the U.S.. The tabloidization of media culture does not seem to have proceeded quite as far North of the border, and overt displays of bigotry don't seem to play as well up here. Given that most of Macleans' editorial staff are the same gang that crashed and burned the National Post (which you can't even use to line a bird-cage these days, because the parrot will complain), an even stronger case can be made that they have mis-judged the Canadian Zeitgeist a second time, and that the final trade-off will be the two semi-literate Neo-Nazis who are attracted to the magazine by its stand on Mr. Steyn, versus the half-dozen normal Canadians who still read Old Mac from nostalgia, but cancel their subscriptions for the same reason.

For me, what this is all about is the necessary public shaming of a Canadian news institution that has gone from being harmless if a little dull to a disgrace to the nation. If Kenneth Whyte and co. come to realize that an association with Mark Steyn is a net negative for their publication and give him his walking papers, this will be a good result however the CHRC case in question plays out.

111 comments:

Anonymous
said...

I'm not sure his comments are protected as free speech in Canada. WE have laws against hate speech. This is one of the things of which I am most proud about Canada. Equating muslim women to breeding mosquitoes seems pretty hateful to me. I am not on a human rights tribunal, nor am I a judge, but it is certainly commentary worth investigating by a tribunal and possibly the supreme court, if the complainants choose that route.

You know the opposite arguement can be made that since most second generation Europeans and Canadians etc and certainly all third generation immigrants, that more muslim babies in the west could bring harmony and peace to the world as the west is able to reach out to the muslim world and moderate muslims will have much greater influence.

Remember the money shot: "breeding like rabbits." I can imagine the outcry an assertion like that, directed at anyone else (save for Muslims and First Nations People) would provoke. I can also imagine many other analogous ones that MacLean's would never dare publish, because the majority of us understand what's acceptable in the mainstream and what isn't.

To be honest, my beef with Steyn (aside from his profound dishonesty), has always been that he's simply a royal half-wit; a benighted cretin who's been a courtier to powerful interests and an enabler of even lower-tier minds than his own (the gang at the NRO, praising La Shaidle lovingly, and generally, a mentor to every rightwing nutcase there is). He can have his web site and screech (or bibble or honk or blither or whatever it is he does) until he's hoarse, but if the popular media expect the rest of us to have faith in an editorial process that is at all concerned with the public interest, they should take it seriously, can Steyn, and free up space for better conservative or Conservative thinkers than some bitter, pseudo-Canadian ponce who should never have been allowed to comment on anything beyond popular culture, for which a crabby and snitty demeanor unburdened by intellectual challenge is best suited.

Last thing: it has always really bugged me that so many completely humourless people find his writing "witty." His wit has never risen above the tone of some teenager who rolls his eyes at you and says "that sucks." Steyn just uses a lot more words to do that.

Actually, Ti_Guy, I think its "mosquitoes", and Steyn's defense is that he is merely quoting an "eminent European Muslim" (actually some guy in Norway I think that they've been trying to deport to the Middle East). On this I think Steyn has a point. But I mean the overall thrust of the piece is that we're being overrun by dark skinned hordes. You don't have to over interpret to get that message.

-Millionaire American/British Bilderberg attendee Mark Steyn, who I doubt has even stepped foot in Canada in the last few years for more than a day at a time, and his book get huge publicity, free.

-Maclean's, a near-monopoly multibillion dollar a year media conglomerate.

Has anyone done due dilligence on the 4 law students who launched the complaint? Drag the promise of an articling position at a top firm through a law school dorm and there's no telling what some kids will do...

My mistake. I had wallowed in the documentation on MacLean's over at the CIC a while back and my recollection of the whole experience is just a night and fog of rightwing spew. I didn't ever read the CIC's analysis of the excerpts; the quotations were bad enough.

When you view all of this in a larger context, the hate, chauvinism and bigotry is unmistakable.

"But I mean the overall thrust of the piece is that we're being overrun by dark skinned hordes."

Have you been to Toronto or the GTA lately?

With over 50% being foreign born, that is the very truth.

Canada is being overrun by dark skinned hordes, but that is what keeps the Liberals in power.

Am I surprised the leftists like importing dark skinned people?

Not one bit.

Remember when Toronto was mostly white and mostly Conservative?

Not anymore. Why, you might ask? Because if the Liberals kept importing Europeans, they would have no chance on forming a government. But when they import muslims and asians, they have a great chance of doing so.

Without importing "dark skinned hordes", there would be no Liberal Party of Canada.

Isn't it ironic that the GTA and Toronto is 99% Liberal?

Why is that?

Because the Liberals imported millions of dark skinned people who would vote Liberal.

I love these people who end their posts with absolute comments like "case closed", as if by simply stating they are correct, it means they are.

Here is a link for you johnathon:http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2006/index.asp

I know it contains those pesky facts you apparently abhor, but don't let that stop you.

I suppose it has never occured to you that most Europeans (and Americans) do not want to immigrate to Canada, given that they already reside in developed, propserous first world countries. I know, I know, those pesky facts...

Wow talk about racist... The above comment reeks of it. Hey, here's a clue dude; People don't vote Conservative because it's filled with racist cretins like you. That goes for people of any race.

Paladiea, there seems to be no way to get rid of that pig, so it really is in everyone's interests to ignore him. He's even gone so far as to post the exact same comment hundreds of times (at RedTory's blog) something even crazy ol' Richard Evans never did.

bigcitylib: Steyn is not warning of "dark-skin hordes" - that is your characterization of his piece. I read the whole book, America Alone, and in my opinion Steyn is not at all concerned about the skin tone of anybody, so much as the political shift that Europe will soon undergo as an inevitable result of its demographic shift. The message of the book, if I may attempt to summarize it myself is that if Europe wants to continue having legalized prostitution, marijuana and gay rights, they might as well have babies which will vote for that kind of stuff when they're of age. Right now, only muslims are having babies in Europe, and honestly, they're not that big on gay rights and prostitution...

The left's problem, exemplified by the anonymous and ti-guy, is that merely criticizing someone who is a darker skin tone is viewed as racist. That behavior by the left is in fact actual racism, unlike quoting some norwegian imam.

God, I hate it when they mention me...then I feel obligated to respond...

The left's problem, exemplified by the anonymous and ti-guy, is that merely criticizing someone who is a darker skin tone is viewed as racist. That behavior by the left is in fact actual racism, unlike quoting some norwegian imam.

Sorry, that baseless rationalisation's expiry date was at least three years ago.

Europe's problems with integrating Muslims and other non-Europeans are not our problems (we've had 400 years of experience on how to deal with that) and nativist arguments about being out bred are inherently bigoted because they assume, incorrectly, that people's attitudes are determined by birth more than anything else.

In any case, Steyn's assertions about the real world are rarely substantiated with any good sciencitific observations, one of which is that the birth rate declines when women become more educated. Think about that for a while.

:::In any case, Steyn's assertions about the real world are rarely substantiated with any good sciencitific observations, one of which is that the birth rate declines when women become more educated. Think about that for a while.:::

in the future, please note the difference between *scientific* observations and *statistical* observations. one involves a predictive model and the other a mathematical correlation.

your point is negated once that conflation is noted.

---

:::and nativist arguments about being out bred are inherently bigoted because they assume, incorrectly, that people's attitudes are determined by birth more than anything else.:::

so: it's alright to use statistics w.r.t. birthrates but not w.r.t. cultural inheritance?

the only bigotry I sense in your post is a hatred of self-consistency.

The majority of rural Albertans are white, uneducated and racist. They vote conservative.

Ergo, conservatives are white, ignorant racists who want to restrict immigration because they fear the loss of their so-called cultural identity (which is actually just racisim), therefore they make silly connections between the fact a city largely votes liberal and immigration policies.

Gee, it is fun to make broad unsubstantiated statements in a desperate attempt to prove my non-exiistent point.

ti-guy: baseless rationalization you say? It's more like an observation I've made over and over again: under the left's religion of political correctness, the only people who can be criticized are invariably white and christian. Everyone else is immune as they might be offended - but white christians who do not feel post-colonial guilt are, according to the left, the scum of the earth. Racism is not the correct term to describe this attitude, but bigotry certainly is.

If you disagree with me, you would be more effective if you could provide some arguments to support your position rather than making baseless rationalizations yourself. Even better, I challenge you to find a single decision from any HRC, provincial or federal, in which a white christian won.

The HRCs commonly classify people in oppressor groups (whites) and oppressed groups (non whites and gays basically). So in trying to achieve equality, they have formalized inequality before the law.

With respect to nativist arguments which you decry as being inherently bigoted because of an assumption which you believe to be false, well the point is Steyn should be allowed to make that argument without fear of retribution from the state, whether it is bigoted or not. Bigots should be exposed, not silenced.

The assumption that peoples attitudes are driven by birth is not entirely correct nor entirely false. However, in America Alone Steyn also points to the fact that the second generation of european muslims is a lot more radicalized than the previous one - he also supports that claims with facts and figures. It is certainly reasonable, and should definitely be allowable discourse, to point out that when muslims form a majority in europe, european politics could likely take a drastic turn.

The willingness and the enthusiasm with which the left and guys like you would silence opinions with which they disagree is an exercise in fascism.

It's more like an observation I've made over and over again: under the left's religion of political correctness, the only people who can be criticized are invariably white and christian.

That's what I meant by "baseless." Your observations (ie. moaning) don't count for anything at all. They are valueless for the rest of us.

Whites and Christians get criticised for what we do, not who we are. And so does everyone else. If you can't understand that, or feel that persecution is something that makes you feel alive, then there's nothing most of us can do for you.

If you disagree with me, you would be more effective if you could provide some arguments to support your position rather than making baseless rationalizations yourself.

You could first point how what rationalisation I've made.

Even better, I challenge you to find a single decision from any HRC, provincial or federal, in which a white christian won.

Ah, the old "do my work for me." Sorry. If you think that's a problem, it's up to you to provide the evidence.

The HRCs commonly classify people in oppressor groups (whites) and oppressed groups (non whites and gays basically). So in trying to achieve equality, they have formalized inequality before the law.

What evidence can you provide to support these assertions?

With respect to nativist arguments which you decry as being inherently bigoted because of an assumption which you believe to be false, well the point is Steyn should be allowed to make that argument without fear of retribution from the state whether it is bigoted or not.

Not necessarily. We do have criminal and civil laws that limit the extent of people's freedom of expression in this regard. You can argue that that alone is excessive, but I've heard all those arguments before.

Bigots should be exposed, not silenced.

I'm never sure that what happens to bigots in Canada is silencing (they never do seem to shut up) or simply holding them responsible for their actions. And expression is an action, like all others.

However, in America Alone Steyn also points to the fact that the second generation of european muslims is a lot more radicalized than the previous one - he also supports that claims with facts and figures. It is certainly reasonable, and should definitely be allowable discourse, to point out that when muslims form a majority in europe, european politics could likely take a drastic turn.

Well, I didn't read America Alone and don't plan to. If you want to make a case for its credibility with me, you'll have to do more work.

The willingness and the enthusiasm with which the left and guys like you would silence opinions with which they disagree is an exercise in fascism.

I wouldn't say fascism, but simply the old Canadian tradition of trying to get the hate-mongers to *tone it down*. The rest of us have been waiting for those people more ideologically aligned with the likes of Steyn to engage in a little self-criticsm and to exert a little self-control, but they've failed to do that.

In the future, please note the difference between *scientific* observations and *statistical* observations. one involves a predictive model and the other a mathematical correlation.

What? A scientific observation is an observation conducted according to the rules of the scientific method. Statistical analysis is an activity by which data is processed to extract meaning, either descriptively, predictively or otherwise.

In future, try to understand that you may not know enough about something in order to venture a critique. What you ended up saying is sheer nonsense.

By the way, BCL...I'm detecting, among the commenters here, that peculiar "hissy and haughty certitude" that characterises the idiot-savants that kkkomprise KKKate's kkkommunity of kkkomenters. I wonder if she linked to this post?

TiGuy, it seems you havent realized it, but most blogs and comments are based on observations. If one cannot speak based on his observations, there will be nothing left to discuss, and your comment that such observations are valueless hold particularly true for your posts. Anyways, your posts have absolutely no value to me except to stimulate discussion, but of course your entire premise is that you want discussion to be suppressed in order that only "allowable" opinions are voiced, so Im not surprised at your twisted logic.

You want evidence that HRCs are institutionally biased against whites and christians: go read any of their decisions.

On your latter pseudo-point that we have limited freedom of expression, well if there had been material that was worthy of a criminal prosecution or a libel/defamation suit, it would have been done. But there isnt, because these cases are handled in REAL courts where saying you have hurt feelings isnt going to get you anywhere.

The complainants against Steyn use the HRCs because they are pseudo-courts which have decided to enforce political correctness as a matter of law. This is wrong as a principle, and it is wrong legally as freedom of expression is enshrined in the charter whereas the right not to be offended is not. Before you babble on about limits of rights enshrined in the charter, I can tell you that the Oakes test for overriding a charter right is not an easy one to satisfy, and that in this particular case, any real court could not possibly rule that the violation of freedom of expression which would follow a ruling against MacLeans would be justified.

Im glad you've heard all those arguments before, sadly they are yet to penetrate the logic barrier surrounding your puny little head - so here it goes again: freedom of expression is the pillar of all other freedoms - if you kill it, all other freedoms are meaningless.

And Im not trying to get you to make a case for America Alone's credibility with you - rest assured. My point is just that nothing in America Alone falls within the category of hate-speech or hate-mongering. Hes merely pointing out facts and these facts point to his conclusion. Trouble is some of these facts are the kind that liberals dont like, because they highlight the utter failure of the liberal ideology. There is no reason, other than fascism and the desire to exert mind control over the population, to suppress that kind of discourse.

BTW, I see in your previous post that you only read the quotations to form your opinion - how idiotic!! The whole "equating muslim with mosquitoes" thingy was a quote from a muslim (he must be some kind of anti-muslim muslim). Whatever, you're a lost cause anyways, so please, keep on cherry-picking your info to make up your opinions.

Labelling Steyn a hate-monger is entirely baseless, and according to your own logic, has absolutely no value to anyone. What it is is merely an easy way to provide an excuse to silence the people with whom you disagree.

That is the left's MO: label your opponents as criminals and try and shut them up instead of discussing ideas. The left should collectively grow a pair of balls and argue opinions openly instead of hiding behind speech codes. Otherwise, the left will have devolved into fascism.

You want evidence that HRCs are institutionally biased against whites and christians: go read any of their decisions.

With that, I'm done with you, Jermo. It was a reasonable request that I made and you ignored it...worse, you turned it around to make it seem as if it were something I brought up in the first place. I suspect because you can't back up the assertions you made, and that you're too dishonest to admit it.

So bye bye. Go attack some other liberal/lefty you (and Steyn) hate.

I suspect the reason you "conservatives" never seem to be win the ideological battles is because you argue your cases so damn badly all the time. If you want the rest of us to support your beliefs, you're going to have to show they're not conspiratorial or paranoid.

:::Is English your first language, Kristan? Because you're kind of incomprehensible.:::

it is. however, I'm talking about science and mathematics with their respective jargons.

---

my original and basic point was this: you treated a statistical correlation (declining birthrate with increasing education) as though it was part of a predictive 'scientific' framework.

if you don't see the mistake you made, go find a basic statistics textbook and read the first few sections. there should be some basic observations on the epistemology of statistics that you should heed.

Wow Ti-Guy I didnt think victory would come so easily against you. You seemed feisty if not particularly intelligent.

Your request was reasonable and I pointed you to where the information you asked for was. Let me spell it out for you cause you dont seem very gifted in dealing with nuances. I asserted my opinion: that the HRCs are biased against whites. You asked for evidence. I pointed you to where to look for evidence. You freaked out and declared an end to the discussion (how very leftist of you). Note that Im not saying to go browse through endless pages of boring decisions: each and every case of the HRC reads like a confession of post-colonial guilt, it was fairly easy for you to go check out.

BTW, I have no desire that my beliefs be supported. I am perfectly happy having left-wing idiocies published anywhere and even broadcast on the CBC with my tax dollars. I merely believe freedom of speech should not be subject to the whims of the useful idiots at the HRC. Unlike you, I can tolerate opinions which are contrary to mine and I even like to argue them using facts and logic. I think its much more civilized than just trying to shut up anybody who doesnt toe the party line - that is fascism. Sorry that you had to learn from me that even though you think you're a liberal, you're just a fascist.

Anyways, thanks for serving as my lefty punching-bag for today, it was fun.

The majority of rural Albertans are white, uneducated and racist. They vote conservative.

"Ergo, conservatives are white, ignorant racists who want to restrict immigration because they fear the loss of their so-called cultural identity (which is actually just racisim), therefore they make silly connections between the fact a city largely votes liberal and immigration policies."

Your an idiot.

And remember, when Alberta decides to separate from this shitty country, Ontario will starve to death.

This will happen in the next 25 years.

Albertan's are to smart not to be able to see how the Liberal Party of Canada is trying to change the country to keep them in power.

The more liberals they import , the better their chances are to steal the taxpayers money.

The Liberal party of Canada should be destroyed, and the sooner the better.

my original and basic point was this: you treated a statistical correlation (declining birthrate with increasing education) as though it was part of a predictive 'scientific' framework.

And you figured this was the time to have a debate on the epistemology of statistical analysis in order to prove...what exactly? That I'm wrong? (which I'm not, but anyway...)

Again, you people argue your cases so damn badly, going off on useless tangents to score meaningless points (concluding that you're a genius at stats, Kristan, won't help Mark Steyn). The only issue here in defending Steyn and MacLeans is the State's intervention with regard to freedom expression and freedom of the press, which is matter of law and jurisprudence.

I'm not defending Steyn or Macleans and never will. So it's up to you guys do that...and effectively, please...if you want to engage someone who's not agreeing with you.

Otherwise, don't bother. Go back to KKKate's and agree with whatever the last thing it is she's posted.

Jermo, you're just a wingnut who thinks attitude and sophistry can make up for the fact that he simply can't argue his point effectively Whether that's from a lack of intelligence or lack of practice is something I can't know.

That's why I gave up. I should never have engaged you in the first place. Your "Victory is Mine!" parting shot is pretty much what I expect from...a right-tard.

The HRC is biased against whites. IIRC, every single defendant has been white and every single one of them was found guilty. It is a kangaroo court.

To the poster who claims Toronto vote 99% liberal, it doesn't. Of course it does vote overwhelmingly liberal and it has only elected liberal and a few NDP MPs for the last 4 or 5 elections. This is mainly because the all the racial aliens the liberals are importing to not so slowly ethnically cleanse Toronto vote about 70% Liberal abd 15% CPC because their main concern is bringing in the rest of their extended families into the country. Even hardcore Muslims vote overwhelmingly liberal and they basically hate everything the Liberal party stands for other than their position on immigration.

So it's no surprise liberals are all in favor of more immigration even as they bemoan all the additional carbon emmissions millions more additional immigrants create nevermind all the other negative enviornmental effects.

Haha ti-guy, dont cry. My "parting shot" was par for the course considering all the innuendos you have been dropping that people who disagree with you are members of the KKK. Thanks for noticing my awesome attitude and sophistry though.

I must say, I am in awe at your wicked argumentative skills, which seem to be limited to saying your opponent has no argumentative skills. That is so brilliant, I hope you dont mind if I try it myself:

Your argumentative skills are terrible!!!

Hmmm, its not quite the same as when you do it.

Anyways, just for the record, you say that the Steyn and Macleans issue is just a matter of law and jurisprudence. I say it is more than that: it is a matter of principle - what law on freedom of speech should canadians want? You want controlled speech governed by bureaucrats, I want ideas debated freely.

You have way too much faith in bureaucrats if you want to hand them the power to determine what speech is allowable. Also, in case you havent gotten it yet, your position is essentially fascism, while mine is more "classic liberal" (the word "liberal" has been hijacked by socialists).

If you wish to live in countries where speech is more regulated, feel free to move to Cuba, North Korea, or maybe Saudi Arabia is more your bag - Im sure you'll love it there.

muzlim is a religion, as is Taoism, Budism, Athiesm and so on . . . therefore . . . race is not an issue . . . I think all of the above can be the object of criticism as we all know Christianity is!!!There are muzzies of all shades, races and colors . . . therefore to equate criticism to racism is silly.But look around the world . . . draw your own conclusions!!!

As of May, 2007, the CHRC has ONLY ever accepted Section 13 (Of the Canadian Human Rights Act) complaints against people the CHRC doesn’t like. So far over 50 complaints have been accepted and EVERY single one of them has been against White Canadians. NOT A SINGLE complaint has been accepted and sent to the tribunal against any other ethnic group. Favoritism is shown to political friends of the CHRC and they are given a free pass and the complaints against them are swept under the rug.

If you are White; truth and intent are no defence. (In fact there are ZERO defences available to you … your guilty of being part of the dispossessed majority)

If you are an “anti-racist” or Edmonton Police Officer caught posting vile hate on a website or posting to Internet message boards. No problem for the Commission.

Who the CHRC attacks?

Active and Past cases: 43

Cases the tribunal ruled on: 29

* 0% of respondents have ever won a section 13 case before the tribunal.

* 100% of cases have Whites as respondents

* 98% of cases have poor or working class respondents

* 90.7% of respondents are not represented by lawyers

* So far, $80,500 has been awarded in fines and special compensation since May 9, 2003 .

Jermo, you got confused somehow and thought when I first commented that I was inviting a debate. That's usually what the blogger does by posting and having a comments section. I was just giving an opinion that indicates, more or less, that I don't care what happens to Mark Steyn. Truth be told, I'd like to see him be rendered to Syria and tortured to find out what he might know about any secret plans the Republicans have to subvert Canadian democracy, but I'd be satisfied if he simply choked to death.

I say it is more than that: it is a matter of principle - what law on freedom of speech should canadians want? You want controlled speech governed by bureaucrats, I want ideas debated freely.

It doesn't matter what I want...these are the laws and the processes we have. If you don't like that, you know what to do. So do I.

You have way too much faith in bureaucrats if you want to hand them the power to determine what speech is allowable.

Hardly. I'd like nothing better than to take on the State if I felt my freedom was being threatened in any way. You're just sounding paranoid.

Also, in case you havent gotten it yet, your position is essentially fascism, while mine is more "classic liberal" (the word "liberal" has been hijacked by socialists).

*sigh* I don't care what you call yourself and what you think. This isn't about you.

If you wish to live in countries where speech is more regulated, feel free to move to Cuba, North Korea, or maybe Saudi Arabia is more your bag - Im sure you'll love it there.

Ti-Guy you say you shouldnt have engaged me and that you dont want to have a discussion with me, but you never seem to let go. You reply like 15 minutes after each of my posts. I think you secretly love me.

So you want Mark Steyn tortured and killed? How nice of you. You are definitely enlightened. Just know that however stupid your ramblings are, I dont wish that on you.

BTW, laws are supposed to reflect our values, not the other way around. Your values obviously include "speech control by the state", so that's why I recommended those hot destinations for you. My values include free speech, and so I advocate it and vote for the party which reflects that value the best. Your statement that "these are the laws and processes we have" ranks probably as the dumbest thing I've read on the web. Congratulations because that is no small feat.

So you want Mark Steyn tortured and killed? How nice of you. You are definitely enlightened. Just know that however stupid your ramblings are, I dont wish that on you.

Really? Gee, you must be unique among your brethren. They're always calling for me to be harmed or killed. And Mark Steyn's best friend, Ann Coulter, certainly thinks "liberals" should realise that they can be killed. And she did that a loooong time ago.

"these are the laws and processes we have" ranks probably as the dumbest thing I've read on the web.

Actually, I have fallen in love with you. As an expression of intimacy, would you like to suck my cock?

Seriously, how many times do you think you can call me dumb and think you're making your point "civilly?"

Go fuck yourself hard, wingnut.

By the way, did you check out the anony's link to the white supremacist site? And you're surprised that I'm quick to prefix "kkk" to so many Steyn defenders?

With respect to the link, I'll take your word for it - I didnt check it out. There are idiots on the left and right and I try and disassociate myself from the right-wing idiots like Jonathon and co. I have no issue with immigration - my concern is with freedom of speech.

The left should heed the reasonable concerns of the right, so as to not give the more extreme elements of the right more ammunition. Furthermore, I find it more effective to laugh at these racist losers than to monitor their speech - it is dangerous and it doesnt work.

Right now, the HRCs are providing the racists with the best gift possible: arguments to legitimize their opinion. By systematically ruling against whites and allowing every claim made by an immigrant, they are creating the sort of situation where it boils over in a kind of Herouxville and Bouchard-Taylor Commission mess.

In the free market of ideas however, these guys dont stand a chance.

Oh and since you've shown we can swear on this thread, fuck you in the neck!!

The left should heed the reasonable concerns of the right, so as to not give the more extreme elements of the right more ammunition.

And the Right should start being more critical of its own extremes (as liberals and the Left always have been) so the rest of us aren't forced to take matters into our own hands.

The extreme elements on the Right aren't the Left's problem.

For reasons that still escape me, given the well-documented examples of Nazi Germany and Rwanda, the Right doesn't seem to know that expression has a very real role in galvanising, radicalising and polarising society to the point where violence and genocides occur. We all have the responsibility to be critical of hateful ideas and lies that get fed into public discourse, especially by people who take up valuable real estate in the mass media.

Since the Right has mobilised very effectively with a message discipline so complete that the rest of us think you're all Borg, there doesn't seem to be any choice other than to engage the processes that exist.

If you don't like that, well that's just too bad.

By the way, while you've been busy defending some idiotic ponce, the US government has been spying on you. But rest assured, your "fwee speech" rights haven't been violated.

By systematically ruling against whites and allowing every claim made by an immigrant

Have ever read a transcript from a CHR tribunal? Do you really have enough evidence assert something like that so equivocally?

It's so...white supremacist. Seriously, it is. Do you talk like this among immigrants and/or the beige?

1. you wrote with great rhetorical flourish about steyn's racist qualities, et al.2. when you switched from rhetoric to substantiation (i.e. giving evidence), you committed two basic logical errors in quick succession.2a. you cherry-picked evidence to your liking.2b. you incorrectly used the evidence you chose to hold on to.3. I called you on these points.4. you responded with ignorance and more basic errors. you also got hung up on the science vs. stats bit instead of the more damning point that you were selectively admitting evidence to support your claim.5. I noted this.6. you responded with more ignorance and some 'your argument isn't relevant anyway' nonsense.

in sum, you haven't substantiated your claim. when I identified this fact, you responded with rhetoric and ignorance.

And remember, when Alberta decides to separate from this shitty country, Ontario will starve to death."

Hate to burst your bubble there, but I was born, raised and still live in this province. And you are full of shit - there is zero chance we will separate, although you may hear differently when you attend your KKK meetings.

I did find it amusing to see your reaction when confronted with the same leaps of logic you rely on to substantiate your arguments. Apparently you have never heard of satire.

TiGuy please, you consider the left has always been critical of its extremes? I dont mean to upset you even more but that may top your other comment as the dumbest thing Ive read on the web. Like when Trudeau really told that Castro off didnt he? Puh-lease, I understand you have leftist persuasion but there is no need to go off into fantasyland.

If you want to talk about Nazi germany, lets do it: first off Nazi stands for National SOCIALIST (source=wikipedia and my grade 12 history teacher, I hope you dont need a source to know that socialism is the left's idea of a good time, not the right). I know that nazis are often associated with the extreme right, and communism with the extreme left, but its a fact that nazis were socialists...

The hate speech which you speak of, responsible for genocides, is properly handled by the criminal code. As per my previous posts, you can see I have no problem with that. HRCs, dealing with the hurt feelings of special interest groups are a different matter entirely.Also note that in Nazi Germany, and presumably in Rwanda (educated guess wrt Rwanda, please correct me if you know otherwise), there was no freedom of speech. The monopoly on speech by the Nazis was more damaging than the hate speech itself. Who knows how history could have unfolded had alternative viewpoints been widely published in Germany in the 30s. I suspect it would have been quite different.

Your ridiculous notion that speech needs to be regulated by the state works only when the state is an allknowing arbiter of what is good and what isnt. I hope I wont have to argue that this isnt the case. Its the same idea as that of the benevolent dictator - and its bs. When a state like Nazi Germany controls speech and goes off the rails, that is what you get. My point is precisely that the free debate of ideas makes atrocities like genocide less likely.

And yes I have read decisions from HRCs - I went to law school (and trust me Im not pulling the "Im a lawyer so I know" card, which makes me sick to my stomach everytime I read it on discussion forums). My point is that yes I've read them, and they're abonimations. Although I despise the white power type crap peddled by one anonymous poster, the stats he mentions are probably correct, and the fact that those stats are used by a white power site, shows how damaging these HRCs can be.

Lastly, how do you know Im not "beige" myself. In fact, I am a gay aboriginal handicap with a foot fetish. Ok fine Im not. But seriously its telling that you find it so "white supremacist" that I would complaint about HRCs being systemically anti-white. Im for equality - as in real equality, not the type where really its some kind of inequality designed to repair some ancestral wrongdoing - and also for freedom of speech.

Your politically correct taboos are clouding your thinking. And so is your hatred of anything conservative.

Jermo...I'm just going to pick out your howlers and comment briefly and in a distracted, disjointed fashion:

Like when Trudeau really told that Castro off didnt he?

Oh, God. Not this again.

I understand you have leftist persuasion but there is no need to go off into fantasyland.

You have obviously never seen me take on things like guaranteed annual incomes, free tuition, lowering the GST (although that has careened from the Left to the Right in a very short period of time), not to mention the nationalisation of the means of production, dialectal materialism, class struggle and perpetual revolution.

If you want to talk about Nazi germany, lets do it: first off Nazi stands for National SOCIALIST...blah blah blah...

Oh God, not this again.

Your ridiculous notion that speech needs to be regulated by the state works only when the state is an allknowing arbiter of what is good and what isnt.

The State is us; we are the State.

My point is that yes I've read them, and they're abonimations.

Very persuasive argument, Counsellor.

the stats he mentions are probably correct

Soooo lazy...

Your politically correct taboos are clouding your thinking.

Nope. I just refuse to defend Mark Steyn. Why is that so important to you? By the way, have you checked other posts on this blog about this issue?

And so is your hatred of anything conservative.

No, my hatred is of anyting Conservative. I'm actually quite conservative myself; I'm just not so focussed on what other people are up to and looking for ways to pass moral judgment over them.

Ah yes, Doctor Dawg, the white squatter on an unresolved Algonquin land claim.

When it was brought to Doctor Dawg's attention recently that his own home was on Algonquin land he offered what might be the weakest response in the history of mankind: "maybe we should settle (the claims)".

Ti-Guy, the only thing worthy of reply in your latest post is "the state is us, we are the state". Im giving you enough credit to believe that youre not just trying to be deep here, so I will reply that you are completely 100% wrong.

When I refer to the state, I mean the government. And the government and you are not the same - the state can tax you, incarcerate you, and otherwise constraint you. The relationship between the individual and the state is a crucial matter, and in fact is the entire reason behind the Charter - the Charter specifcally regulates the relationship between the state and the individual, as in it only restraints the state from certain types of actions.

NB: I dont really believe in a legalist argument but I can make one cause you seem hung up on that.

One of those restraints is that the goverment may not act in a matter which restricts freedom of speech unless it can be justified in a "free and democratic society" - that is the exact wording of s. 1 I believe.

Now, legally to suppress speech is a very difficult test - I mean the Supreme Court even extended the Charter's protection to fictional child porn for private use - see paragraphs 75 and 76 of R. v. Sharpe [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45.

You think that its cool that Mark Steyn is being prosecuted by the state because you dont agree with Steyn - and thats totally understandable - but just remember that suppressing speech because you disagree with it is basically the definition of fascism.

You think that its cool that Mark Steyn is being prosecuted by the state because you dont agree with Steyn - and thats totally understandable - but just remember that suppressing speech because you disagree with it is basically the definition of fascism.

Fascism is a lot more complex than that. Instead of wasting your time defending some Canada-hating ponce and lying hate-monger, why don't look into the real story of fascism in North America?

Dear Mr. Anonymous - the above Mosquito comment was not Mark Steyn's choice of words. He was quoting a Mullah Krekar, a European Muslim leader, who was bragging about how Muslims will take over Europe by outbreeding the native stock. Hateful? You bet. Only the target of the hate isn't Islam, it is you and I.

"But I mean the overall thrust of the piece is that we're being overrun by dark skinned hordes. You don't have to over interpret to get that message."

Having read Mark Steyn's works for years, I'm quite sure he wouldn't waste his energy and time on race hatred. It seems his point all along has been that the West's liberals (whether "conservative," "libertarian," "Lockean," or "left-liberal") aren't reproducing themselves. The youth growing up in the West tend to lack a liberal upbringing, tend to despise the native, liberal populaces, and tend to wish to supplant the liberal regimes and liberal peoples. I can't imagine Mark Steyn hating anyone because of his race or his dark hue. Race and color per se are trifling details, even boring; we have more important things on our mind.

Ti-guy is a real treat and a non-contextual absolutist. Reading his diatribe against Steyn and basic Western principles of liberty is like the nightmare Australia was living during the 1990's under the left wing Labour government. Unfortunately for us, they are back in power now. I would point out however that the only saving grace is that our previous government shifted the political spectrum so much so that it will be a few years before this sort of totalitarianism gains traction. Ti-guy it could just be the case that some laws are made for ignoring when they are inconsistent with an overriding constitutional principle like "freedom of speech". I am no expert in Canadian law, but the fact is, no matter what the law states, you can never legislate on opinions or the right to expressing them. No matter how hard the Thought Gestapo and the so called intelligentsia try and engineer attitudes-liberty and freedom are timeless values that spread like a contagion. "Give me liberty or give me death"

One thing I agree with Gayle is that as much as I would like to see it, Alberta will not separate. There are way too many sheep in Alberta who will meekly take it up the ass no matter what Ottawa does.

But I mean the overall thrust of the piece is that we're being overrun by dark skinned hordes. You don't have to over interpret to get that message.

But if you just declare that, you may miss the key point BCL, which is that people like you object to every piece of domestic policy that these dark skinned hordes would enact if they had the opportunity to do so. Can't you get even a little worried about that?

The commenter at the top writes: "Equating muslim women to breeding mosquitoes seems pretty hateful to me."

This comparison, however, was made NOT by Mark Steyn, but by a prominent Scandinavian Muslim. So I suppose you meant to say call Mullah Krekar hateful. Or would that make you Islamophobic?

Could someone quote for me ONE racist or hateful thing that Mark Steyn has actually said? Could someone expose ONE lie that Steyn has told? Because it seems to me that his detractors (on here and elsewhere) are either appallingly ignorant of his work, or all too willing to put words in his mouth in their efforts to discredit him.

Er, Steyn is "Racist?" Which race? Islam is a…now listen carefully bub, a religion, and not exempt from criticism. You mean Steyn believes in the non scientific idea of distinct and genetic “races”, and that some are inferior to others as a “race?”

Um, find some qualifying and supportive quotes or evidence. There are…NONE.

The mosquito quote is quoting Mullah Krekar, an Imam in Norway who organised a violent terrorist group in his home area and now states clearly that any Muslim should cut off the head of anyone who insults Islam, in the streets of Norway!

If you say he’s not a Muslim, that will be news to his family, ancestors and so on stretching back about thousand years.This pretty much proves you either haven’t read Steyn’s book at all really, have you, or you are merely incompetent?

You are either devoid of ability and not a writer, but are a liar or just a pathetic mass mediocrity phony. You pick one.

I have not seen one empirical point with supporting evidence on your entire blog regards the mostly ad hominems thrown easily and fatuously at Steyn.

Hey, I like ad hominems too, but they only cut when you have anything to say that's um, supported by um, anything.Steyn is not a "cretin" as any effort at actually reading his work not just on politics but music will show, or his speeches, or any of his vast and widely read output.

But I then you are merely affected with the standard shrill and empty posturing of the moral vanity of political correctness. You can't tolerate ANY deviation from standard Left PC guff, rhetoric and narcissistic platitudes.

Are you telling me that what you’re writing is fresh, natural, dynamic and worthy or even witty and humourous?

Come on…it’s bog standard drivel available from any by the numbers Leftard twerp. It's embarrassing, mate.

Islam is empirically a serious and murderous problem everywhere it exists in the world. Problematic to put it mildly.

But the real reason you don't want to face this, is because once you admit to this one thing, with any further examination and analysis your whole shithouse of carefully arranged cards will er, collapse, eh?

You know it, hence the shouting down, intolerance and incuriousness regards ANY criticism. Don’t look in that old mirror, Narcissus!

Man, this is why so many Leftoid sites, radio and so on don't work, last or can ever be serious sources of anything but Student Union crisis meeting pamphlet hyperbole material.

Once ya get all the "BushIsHitler, Fascist! Smash Capitalism, ANY criticism of Islam is verboten, I love Sean Penn he's a real rebel etc", the whole thing grinds to a halt and collapses on its own sodden and juvenile weight.

But hey, good luck with your own personal version of the humourless, talent free zone of mediocrity that was Air America, that is the bizarre immaturity and irrationality of the View, the usual and entirely predictable fake rebel poses of Hollywood stars, the juvenile incoherence of Kos kids, and the utter failure of junk like Wake up with Whoopi.

I see you are untroubled by any sense of intellectual Quality Control as you spring from one Logical Fallacy to another... like much of the Axis of Mediocrity that is the Left, Lib and Rad thing.

"Er, Steyn is "Racist?" Which race? Islam is a…now listen carefully bub, a religion, and not exempt from criticism. You mean Steyn believes in the non scientific idea of distinct and genetic “races”, and that some are inferior to others as a “race?”"

I am getting sick of this. We "get" that. The fact that some people use the term "racist" instead of the term "bigot" does not negate their point. Arguing semantics does not enhance yours.

Once you write this:

"Islam is empirically a serious and murderous problem everywhere it exists in the world. Problematic to put it mildly."

and this:

"But I then you are merely affected with the standard shrill and empty posturing of the moral vanity of political correctness. You can't tolerate ANY deviation from standard Left PC guff, rhetoric and narcissistic platitudes."

this point:

"You are either devoid of ability and not a writer, but are a liar or just a pathetic mass mediocrity phony. You pick one.

I have not seen one empirical point with supporting evidence on your entire blog regards the mostly ad hominems thrown easily and fatuously at Steyn."

is just funny...and sad...and proves the point that many "leftoids" have been trying to make.

With all your big fancy words you might want to look up the term "hypocrite".

Ti-guy is a real treat and a non-contextual absolutist. Reading his diatribe against Steyn and basic Western principles of liberty is like the nightmare Australia was living during the 1990's under the left wing Labour government. Unfortunately for us, they are back in power now. I would point out however that the only saving grace is that our previous government shifted the political spectrum so much so that it will be a few years before this sort of totalitarianism gains traction. Ti-guy it could just be the case that some laws are made for ignoring when they are inconsistent with an overriding constitutional principle like "freedom of speech". I am no expert in Canadian law, but the fact is, no matter what the law states, you can never legislate on opinions or the right to expressing them. No matter how hard the Thought Gestapo and the so called intelligentsia try and engineer attitudes-liberty and freedom are timeless values that spread like a contagion. "Give me liberty or give me death".

So paranoid, so stupid, so verbose and grandiloquent.

The Right in a nutshell. A bunch of angry assholes who talk about principles far more than they live them.

Just shows, anon 11:57 am, that Warmen picked his cases carefully to target the real fruit-loops. Nazis, Whatcott, and etc. This case, on the other hand, is clearly a stretch. Furthermore, I suspect Steyn and Ezra and Coyne at Macleans know it. The chest pounding is for their fans.

They have been overturned on what, appeal? That doesn't change the fact that they still find 100% of the cases as guilty.

Look, you already proved you assert things without actually knowing whether the assertions are true or not, so instead of continuing that pointless exercise, why don't you educate yourself?

The righty critique that I've found useful in this whole exercise is that increasingly, the tribunals are being asked to handle issues they weren't originally designed for. Where we go from there is something I'm starting to care less about given the deafening and paranoid squawking coming from the righties. What is wrong with you people?

I'd like to know more about what is racist in asserting that we should settle outstanding land claims, Algonkian or not. Last I heard, no one on the Algonkian side of things was demanding the expropriation of Ottawa.

The only difference between Kate's winged monkeys and Kathy's winged monkeys seems to be that the latter don't even have enough imagination to make up handles.

Well, because (as Ti-Guy mentioned) the case involves an application of the legislation to an area beyond its original intent. While Steyn's assertions might well consitute hate speech (rather than just offensive speech)in another context (a work setting, as G. Wise suggests), they are probably allowed in the context of an article in a magazine by a "journalist". However, the CHRC might want to test that distinction (rather than assume it), and you need a tribunal to do that. Macleans and Steyn join a whole buttload of Canadian Nazis in driving the evolution of our legal framework. Good on them.

I use "racist" deliberately, because I don't think that Steyn and especially his audience could tell a muslim from a Mexican if they ran up and bit them on the ass screaming "I am a Muslim!" (Witness the Ezra Levant and the Babushka incident). To claim Steyns' ranting is anti-Islamist rather than straight-up racist is to grant it a subtlety it does not deserve. He's basically complaining that "we" are about to get overrun by a dark-skinned race. The fact that they are also of a particular religion is essentially a quibble.

(He also bashes Jamaicans in his spare time, if I remember correctly).

What is worse, hating someone because of the colour of their skin, or because of their religion?

Does it matter?

Bigotry is hatred. Whether you hate them for their skin or their religion matters not. That is why I could care less if someone uses the term racist instead of bigot. We all know what is meant, and attacking someone's opinion because they mix the terms up simply demonstrates the weakness of the attacker's position.

:::they are probably allowed in the context of an article in a magazine by a "journalist".:::

1. the air quotes are unnecessary and frivolous.2. then in the same way, freedom of the press is only 'probably allowed.'

:::However, the CHRC might want to test that distinction (rather than assume it),:::

on what basis? clearly not the basis of law.

:::and you need a tribunal to do that.:::

no, you need a repeal of charter to do that.

:::Macleans and Steyn join a whole buttload of Canadian Nazis in driving the evolution of our legal framework.:::

needless ad hominem.

:::Good on them.:::

and shame on you. you would shame a man for the clear use of his personal liberty.

---

since I agree with steyn that this case is prima facie idiotic and should never have existed, I am eager to hear a rational and evidence-driven argument to the contrary. perhaps I will find it elsewhere.

"Witness" that Ezra Levant is not Mark Steyn and cannot be more than one member of Steyn's readership. ("Witness" that the quoted sentence includes one error of word choice, one of phrasing, one of capitalization, and one of punctuation.)

To claim Steyns' ranting is anti-Islamist rather than straight-up racist is to grant it a subtlety it does not deserve. He's basically complaining that "we" are about to get overrun by a dark-skinned race. The fact that they are also of a particular religion is essentially a quibble.

We think this claim has cost BigCity"Liberal" the favorable regard of anyone who has read Mark Steyn's book America Alone with even ordinary comprehension.

(He also bashes Jamaicans in his spare time, if I remember correctly).

We do remember correctly. Mark Steyn deplored a high crime rate in Jamaican immigrant communities and a prevalence of Jamaican gangs engaged in organized crime. That would not be evidence of racism or any other sort of bigotry, unless he were to make up false claims.

I know I am late to the substantive issues in this little debate, but I am going to wade into it anyway.

Jermo:“I asserted my opinion: that the HRCs are biased against whites. You asked for evidence. I pointed you to where to look for evidence.”

When you go to court, do you tell the judge that if s/he does not believe you to go look it up? Surely you know that when you make an argument, it is up to you to back it up with actual facts. Or do you just tell the judge to read the SCR’s if he does not believe you.

“Right now, the HRCs are providing the racists with the best gift possible: arguments to legitimize their opinion. By systematically ruling against whites and allowing every claim made by an immigrant, they are creating the sort of situation where it boils over in a kind of Herouxville and Bouchard-Taylor Commission mess.”

The problem with you (and others) relying on the assertion that the HRC has allowed all the claims by immigrants and has not allowed any claims from white straight males is that even if it is true, it is utterly meaningless. It is like saying an elite soccer team is racist because all team members are white, when only 5 Aboriginals tried out, and none of them had ever played the game before.

You see, it is the quality that is relevant, not the quantity. If you wish to assert the HRC’s are biased, then you need to bring forward evidence that they have allowed claims they should not have allowed, and denied claims they should have allowed. Numbers are meaningless – we want facts. (Note, facts; not your opinion based on your reading of the cases).

Kristen:

“folks tend to get upset when the obvious rule of law is ignored by legal institutions.

or will you justify here the suspension of charter?”

Huh? I assume you are aware the SCC in Irwin Toy protected all forms of expression, other than violent forms. The key is section 1. It is a balancing act. You do not like the way that has turned out – bully for you. It is wrong to assert that the Charter protects all forms of speech absolutely.

steyn's error in a recently published article about NOW has precisely jack relevance to the question of racism or bigotry.

I wasn't making the argument that it did. I brought it up as evidence of Steyn's lack of rigorousness. Please apologise to me for accusing me of the logical fallacy of arguing by non sequitur, as that incivility has wounded me deeply.

I can only answer for myself: it was the popular convention on the first bulletin board I posted on, back in the day. I like it.

Oh, of course I believe you. You should really stop using it, though. It's non standard and makes you look illiterate.

now, if you presented how steyn was unrigourous in his arguments about Islamisation, I'd be very interested. it still wouldn't be relevant to the charge of racism and the legitimacy of the legal charges against steyn, but it'd be interesting.

Ok - so you do not understand the Charter. I suggest you read it before you make such arguments.

Short version (which has already been set out by jermo, by the way):

Section 1 of the Charter says the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter "are subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".

Translation:

Expression may be limited in certain circumstances, which is why hate speech, while a form of expression, is not accorded constitutional protection. In other words, it is a balancing act (did you miss that point in my post?).

In fairness to you, I should not have said the SCC "protected" all forms of expression - rather I should have said they "defined" expression under the Charter as covering all but violent forms of expression. That is under section 2. You still have to deal with section 1.

That does not excuse you for making comments about the Charter when you clearly have not educated yourself on it.

which is only superficially relevant to the question being discussed in the original post and comments thereafter.

What? Read my first comment; my major beef with Steyn has always been that he's stupid...he asserts things without knowing whether they're true or not. I do in fact believe he's a bigot, probably a racist as well, but I don't care to prove that and I don't care if anyone else thinks that's true or not. But his stupidity is easily documented, which many have done, an example of which I highlighted.

It also doesn't matter to anyone whether you think that comment was suitably placed within the rhetorical structure of this blog posting and the subsequent comments, because that's a joke; you didn't comment on all the troll crap, did ya?

now, if you presented how steyn was unrigourous in his arguments about Islamisation, I'd be very interested.

Sorry, that's your job. Read Steyn's crap and critique it.

it still wouldn't be relevant to the charge of racism and the legitimacy of the legal charges against steyn, but it'd be interesting.

If I speak out against a belief system which subjugates women, dehumanizes those who are not true believers, advocates the capital punishment of gays, ect.

am I a "bigot"?

You see Gayle, you don't get it.

Steyn himself often laments in his works the demise of moderate/peaceful Islam, and the rise of the wahabbist/radical islam. (did you know Gayle that if you looked at a picture of downtown Ridya there would be very few women wearing the full hajibes?).

It's the belief's that are dangerous not the people.

Just as Nazism was dangerous in the '30's and Marxism was dangerous in the 50's to 90's,

so too is radical Isam and the rise of that belief system, dangerous today.

Tell me Gayle, how can Steyn be "bigoted" against all muslims everywhere in every context, when his works are littered with references to the tragedy of moderate Islam dying.

The people on here who are ready to hang Steyn from the gallows simply because they don't disagree with him are scary, scary people. When on earth did "free speech" come to mean "free speech if *I* agree with you"?!?

And then to incorrectly attribute quotes to him as "proof" of his guilt is beyond the pale. You all should listen to Rex Murphy's thoughts on this matter: http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/rex_murphy/human_rights_gone_awry.html

As someone who has read "America Alone", Steyn explicityly states that race isn't the issue, culture is. The muslims that emigrated to the UK in the 50s, 60s, and 70s are, in his words, more integrated with the UK than their children or grandchildren. These initial immigrants aren't the problem, and I have yet to see anything written by him bemoaning hindi migrants from India, christian migrants from Lebanon or Bhuddist migrants Thailand. The issue is NOT race, it is culture.

Steyn also addresses the issue of moderate muslims, and while I grant it is controversial, it should not be verboten.

Your question was irrelevant, but the answer is it is not violent. The reason it is not relevant is because section 1 allows the freedom of expression to be limited. In simple terms (and hopefully you will understand this), it is wrong to assert the Charter protects all forms of expression absolutely. In fact, it does not protect violent expression. Even forms of expression that fit within the definition of "expression" in section 2 may be limited by operation of section 1. That is why hate speech, which is not a violent form of expression, is not protected by the Charter.

You seem to be one of those people who think they are smarter than they are, but who are not smart enough to know that. I would feel sorry for you if you were not so very, unjustifiably, arrogant about it.

Let me say this again - you should not be discussing the Charter in the context you wish to discuss it until you actually understand how it works - and it is painfully obvious you do not.

apparently the first time was insufficient, so let me repeat myself-"don't attempt to divine thought-process from a sentence fragment."

take a step back and look at the hilarity of what you've done twice in quick succession:1. arrogantly presumed what I'm thinking on the basis of insufficient evidence2. lectured me on the 'arrogant' thinking you've so miraculously found in me.

you should know better.

second, I never claimed the charter protects all form of expression. you have twice now claimed that I did. the error is yours.

---

since you seem to be unobservant and resistant, let's go over things slowly.1. you referenced violent (but not hate) speech as a form of expression not protected by the charter.2. I responded topically by asking for you to point out the violence.2a. or did you completely fail to notice that my question mimicked the response I quoted above it?3. instead of doing the sensible thing and just saying 'no, of course there wasn't violence; however, hate speech is another form of expression not protected by the charter; I claim that steyn's speech falls in this category,' you chose to switch into freud mode.

:::You seem to be one of those people who think they are smarter than they are, but who are not smart enough to know that. I would feel sorry for you if you were not so very, unjustifiably, arrogant about it.:::

and where did my intelligence come into this? needless ad hominems and strawmen attacks speak about you far more than the question

'elucidate the violence'

ever did about me.

but whatever. in the face of such compelling psychoanalysis I must tremble.

---

let's cut to the quick:can you substantiate your effective claim (that you still haven't made because you're too busy rambling on about how arrogant I am) that steyn's speech qualifies as hate speech unprotected by the charter?

if you don't advance the claim, then you're entire presence in this thread of comments self-contradicts.

"It is wrong to assert that the Charter protects all forms of speech absolutely."

This is what you said:

“folks tend to get upset when the obvious rule of law is ignored by legal institutions.

or will you justify here the suspension of charter?”

I pointed out the Charter does not need to be suspended in order for expression to be limited. At no point did I ever limit this to violent forms of expression. You simply jumped to that conclusion because you did not understand my reference to section 1.

You demonstrated your ignorance of the Charter when you asked me to "elucidate" the violence, and then said this:

"strawman, but understandable. in the effort to be pithy, I was not logically complete."

This demonstrates your belief that the ONLY limit on free expression was if that expression was violent. That is the only way to logically interpret your comments given your claim that in order to limit speech was to "suspend" the Charter.

I have made no claims about Steyn, and do not intend to. My purpose was to point out your ignorance about the operation of the Charter.

As for this:

"don't attempt to divine thought-process from a sentence fragment."

If you were capable of expressing yourself in complete sentences I might be able to comply.

As for the rest, I am not going to run around in circles with you anymore. You are clearly out of your depth when discussing the Charter, and you and I both know it. Your attempt to change this into a conversation about something else is not going to work.

"Steyn's defense is that he is merely quoting an "eminent European Muslim" (actually some guy in Norway I think that they've been trying to deport to the Middle East). On this I think Steyn has a point. But..."

Blinding flash of the obvious! Mark Steyn is not the author of those words! Have a seat, BCL, you must be exhausted from all that thinking.

Mark Steyn does not need a defense, BTW. It's only hypersensitive losers who need to be constantly offended and victimized to maintain a sense of identity who feel he does.

Man up, losers! You offend us too, but you don't see us evil right-wing hatemongers haling you before Soviet-style People's Courts for it. Wouldn't be very useful anyway, I suppose, as they're manned by your ideological kinfolk, but the point is that it wouldn't even occur to us; you have the same freedom to hate as we do.